:Hi AugustO. Thank you for your comments. I apologize for not seeing this and responding earlier, but I am not at Conservapedia every day, being extra busy recently with work/school/life matters. I respect the fact that you care deeply about this matter; it's when people do care about the accuracy and validity of the information contained in the Wiki that it makes the project better and more reliable. So I commend you on wanting things to be as accurate as possible. However, unfortunately I don't know much about this subject matter, and couldn't even begin to formulate an informed opinion on it, so I am of no help whatsoever, sad to say. I would suggest you communicate directly with the person who made the edits, in this case apparently ASchlafly, about your concerns, and hopefully you will be able to discuss and come to some sort of resolution. I am sorry I am not able to be of any help in this, I hope you are able to work it out to your satisfaction. Thank you for your continued interest in Conservapedia. Best Wishes, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:01, 29 November 2012 (EST)

:Hi AugustO. Thank you for your comments. I apologize for not seeing this and responding earlier, but I am not at Conservapedia every day, being extra busy recently with work/school/life matters. I respect the fact that you care deeply about this matter; it's when people do care about the accuracy and validity of the information contained in the Wiki that it makes the project better and more reliable. So I commend you on wanting things to be as accurate as possible. However, unfortunately I don't know much about this subject matter, and couldn't even begin to formulate an informed opinion on it, so I am of no help whatsoever, sad to say. I would suggest you communicate directly with the person who made the edits, in this case apparently ASchlafly, about your concerns, and hopefully you will be able to discuss and come to some sort of resolution. I am sorry I am not able to be of any help in this, I hope you are able to work it out to your satisfaction. Thank you for your continued interest in Conservapedia. Best Wishes, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:01, 29 November 2012 (EST)

+

+

::No apology necessary: thank you for taking the time to answer to my comment! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:45, 30 November 2012 (EST)

"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and the most plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."

"The Epistle to the Hebrews is the nineteenth book of the New Testament, and one of the greatest mysteries in all of intellectual history: the authorship of this brilliant work is unknown, and one plausible theory is that Jesus himself wrote or dictated it."

”

I couldn't find any Biblical scholar who shares this idea, I couldn't find any authorative figure who promotes this - and this isn't much of a surprise if you read the epistle for yourself! The only "scholar" who has proposed this "theory" in the last 2000 years is Andrew Schlafly.

I tried to delete this sentence, and then I tried to make it clear that this idea is a personal insight by Andrew Schlafly. My edits were reverted: any reader of this encyclopedia gets the impression that this theory is something commonly known or well discussed. That's utterly untrue.

I tend to be quite strict on Biblical matters - I'm often accused of being nitpicky. As one of the sysops of Conservapedia who was active in 2012 I ask you to weigh in on this problem: maybe it is just me and most of the of you and your fellow sysops think that it is acceptable to present an insight of a single person in a Biblical matter (an insight shared by virtually no one) as a plausible theory. But - as the title of this section indicates - for me this is a very serious matter.

Hi AugustO. Thank you for your comments. I apologize for not seeing this and responding earlier, but I am not at Conservapedia every day, being extra busy recently with work/school/life matters. I respect the fact that you care deeply about this matter; it's when people do care about the accuracy and validity of the information contained in the Wiki that it makes the project better and more reliable. So I commend you on wanting things to be as accurate as possible. However, unfortunately I don't know much about this subject matter, and couldn't even begin to formulate an informed opinion on it, so I am of no help whatsoever, sad to say. I would suggest you communicate directly with the person who made the edits, in this case apparently ASchlafly, about your concerns, and hopefully you will be able to discuss and come to some sort of resolution. I am sorry I am not able to be of any help in this, I hope you are able to work it out to your satisfaction. Thank you for your continued interest in Conservapedia. Best Wishes, Taj 17:01, 29 November 2012 (EST)

No apology necessary: thank you for taking the time to answer to my comment! --AugustO 04:45, 30 November 2012 (EST)